Tag: Gerald Howarth

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gerald Howarth on 2016-01-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy, published in October 2015, what constitutes non-violent extremism.

Karen Bradley

The Government definition of extremism is ‘vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.’ We have been consistent on this since 2011 and have reaffirmed this definition in the Counter-Extremism Strategy.

The overwhelming majority of people in this country support these values and condemn those who try to undermine them.

The Government would not consider the ‘claim’ that an individual’s religion is ‘the only one true faith’ to be extremist.

We are clear that Government should not restrict anyone’s freedom of speech or right to practise a faith. These are core values that help to make our country great. However we shouldn’t allow the extremist voice to go unchallenged, causing harm to our society and promoting hatred and division.

The Government has engaged on the strategy, and will continue to engage with partners – including faith groups, communities and civic society groups on the new proposed powers to tackle the most dangerous extremists. This provides an opportunity to consult on the proposed powers further, and ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place to protect our rights to free speech and debate.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gerald Howarth on 2016-01-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy, published in October 2015, what her definition is of non-violent expressions of religious belief which are (a) extreme and (b) not extreme.

Karen Bradley

The Government definition of extremism is ‘vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.’ We have been consistent on this since 2011 and have reaffirmed this definition in the Counter-Extremism Strategy.

The overwhelming majority of people in this country support these values and condemn those who try to undermine them.

The Government would not consider the ‘claim’ that an individual’s religion is ‘the only one true faith’ to be extremist.

We are clear that Government should not restrict anyone’s freedom of speech or right to practise a faith. These are core values that help to make our country great. However we shouldn’t allow the extremist voice to go unchallenged, causing harm to our society and promoting hatred and division.

The Government has engaged on the strategy, and will continue to engage with partners – including faith groups, communities and civic society groups on the new proposed powers to tackle the most dangerous extremists. This provides an opportunity to consult on the proposed powers further, and ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place to protect our rights to free speech and debate.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gerald Howarth on 2016-01-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to paragraph 113 of the Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy, published in October 2015, what definition her Department uses of extremism; and what steps she is taking to ensure that that definition does not close down debate or limit free speech.

Karen Bradley

The Government definition of extremism is ‘vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.’ We have been consistent on this since 2011 and have reaffirmed this definition in the Counter-Extremism Strategy.

The overwhelming majority of people in this country support these values and condemn those who try to undermine them.

The Government would not consider the ‘claim’ that an individual’s religion is ‘the only one true faith’ to be extremist.

We are clear that Government should not restrict anyone’s freedom of speech or right to practise a faith. These are core values that help to make our country great. However we shouldn’t allow the extremist voice to go unchallenged, causing harm to our society and promoting hatred and division.

The Government has engaged on the strategy, and will continue to engage with partners – including faith groups, communities and civic society groups on the new proposed powers to tackle the most dangerous extremists. This provides an opportunity to consult on the proposed powers further, and ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place to protect our rights to free speech and debate.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gerald Howarth on 2016-01-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy, published in October 2015, whether a religious group or individual which claims that their religion is the only one true faith is included in its definition of extremism.

Karen Bradley

The Government definition of extremism is ‘vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.’ We have been consistent on this since 2011 and have reaffirmed this definition in the Counter-Extremism Strategy.

The overwhelming majority of people in this country support these values and condemn those who try to undermine them.

The Government would not consider the ‘claim’ that an individual’s religion is ‘the only one true faith’ to be extremist.

We are clear that Government should not restrict anyone’s freedom of speech or right to practise a faith. These are core values that help to make our country great. However we shouldn’t allow the extremist voice to go unchallenged, causing harm to our society and promoting hatred and division.

The Government has engaged on the strategy, and will continue to engage with partners – including faith groups, communities and civic society groups on the new proposed powers to tackle the most dangerous extremists. This provides an opportunity to consult on the proposed powers further, and ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place to protect our rights to free speech and debate.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gerald Howarth on 2016-01-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy, published in October 2015, what plans the Government has to consult with faith groups on its definition of extremism.

Karen Bradley

The Government definition of extremism is ‘vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.’ We have been consistent on this since 2011 and have reaffirmed this definition in the Counter-Extremism Strategy.

The overwhelming majority of people in this country support these values and condemn those who try to undermine them.

The Government would not consider the ‘claim’ that an individual’s religion is ‘the only one true faith’ to be extremist.

We are clear that Government should not restrict anyone’s freedom of speech or right to practise a faith. These are core values that help to make our country great. However we shouldn’t allow the extremist voice to go unchallenged, causing harm to our society and promoting hatred and division.

The Government has engaged on the strategy, and will continue to engage with partners – including faith groups, communities and civic society groups on the new proposed powers to tackle the most dangerous extremists. This provides an opportunity to consult on the proposed powers further, and ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place to protect our rights to free speech and debate.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gerald Howarth on 2016-01-12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what his priorities are for the acquisition of defence equipment over the next two years.

Mr Philip Dunne

The Strategic Defence and Security Review provided clarity of the Government’s defence equipment priorities not just for the next two years, but for the rest of this Parliament. We have committed to an additional £12 billion for the Equipment Plan to £178 billion over the next 10 years. This includes finalising investment proposals for the next stage of the Successor nuclear deterrent programme and the procurement of a new fleet of nine Boeing P8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft, as we build towards Joint Force 2025.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gerald Howarth on 2016-07-11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether there has been any evidence of fraud relating to the Right to Buy scheme; and what steps the Government has taken to prevent such fraud.

Brandon Lewis

This Government takes fraud extremely seriously. The Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013 increased the deterrent to tenants considering cheating the system, ensuring those who do cheat are detected more easily and punished more severely, and encourages social landlords to take a more proactive approach to tackling tenancy fraud.

We also provided £19 million funding to help councils tackle tenancy fraud as part of over £35 million government funding to tackle fraud across local government.

We have recently set up a Right to Buy Working Group with representative of housing associations, local authorities and lenders to identify additional safeguards to curb fraud when the Voluntary Right to Buy scheme is rolled out to 1.3 million housing association tenants. Work is underway developing the detailed design of the scheme in collaboration with the housing association sector, specifically looking at how fraud and opportunistic practice prevention measures can, as far as possible, be designed into the sales process.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gerald Howarth on 2016-07-11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what resources the Government has allocated to anti-fraud measures relating to the Right to Buy scheme; and how that allocation compares to measures aimed at preventing or detecting benefit fraud.

Brandon Lewis

This Government takes fraud extremely seriously. The Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013 increased the deterrent to tenants considering cheating the system, ensuring those who do cheat are detected more easily and punished more severely, and encourages social landlords to take a more proactive approach to tackling tenancy fraud.

We also provided £19 million funding to help councils tackle tenancy fraud as part of over £35 million government funding to tackle fraud across local government.

We have recently set up a Right to Buy Working Group with representative of housing associations, local authorities and lenders to identify additional safeguards to curb fraud when the Voluntary Right to Buy scheme is rolled out to 1.3 million housing association tenants. Work is underway developing the detailed design of the scheme in collaboration with the housing association sector, specifically looking at how fraud and opportunistic practice prevention measures can, as far as possible, be designed into the sales process.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gerald Howarth on 2016-07-11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps (a) local authorities, (b) housing associations, (c) his Department and (d) the National Audit Office have taken to investigate the extent of fraud relating to the Right to Buy scheme.

Brandon Lewis

This Government takes fraud extremely seriously. The Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013 increased the deterrent to tenants considering cheating the system, ensuring those who do cheat are detected more easily and punished more severely, and encourages social landlords to take a more proactive approach to tackling tenancy fraud.

We also provided £19 million funding to help councils tackle tenancy fraud as part of over £35 million government funding to tackle fraud across local government.

We have recently set up a Right to Buy Working Group with representative of housing associations, local authorities and lenders to identify additional safeguards to curb fraud when the Voluntary Right to Buy scheme is rolled out to 1.3 million housing association tenants. Work is underway developing the detailed design of the scheme in collaboration with the housing association sector, specifically looking at how fraud and opportunistic practice prevention measures can, as far as possible, be designed into the sales process.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gerald Howarth on 2016-07-11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many tenants who receive social security benefits have been granted the Right to Buy.

Brandon Lewis

The information requested is not held centrally.